Who is VAR for?

TinyRick

Well-Known Member
According to the EPL, the final decision still lies with the match referee who can view the VAR evidence if they want.
 

Walter2

Well-Known Member
See both sides of VAR,and still not convinced!
Yesterday for example the game is better at our 3rd goal for the ref/linesman allowing play to continue,at their not over the line attempt, instead of stopping the game for VAR check, tight one
 

songsofglory

Well-Known Member
Which glaringly obvious ones have been missed then??
Chelsea penalty v Norwich
Bournemouth penalty on Friday night
Villa handball yesterday
City penalty not given v Bournemouth
Haller not getting a penalty v Norwich.

That's only a quick summary.
 

songsofglory

Well-Known Member
I think the Clear and Obvious Error part is being mixed up with offside in many people's minds.

The C&OE refers to reviewing the 4 match changing situations - Goal, Penalty, Straight Red, Mistaken Identity.

Offside is absolute - you're either on or off, and given that it's already been stated that they review all goals, if someone is off then they're off. Doesn't matter if its a 'pubic hair offside', or 3 yards. It's not the distance if offside that's being reviewed, it's not saying that offside is a clear and obvious error, it's literally verifying if the player was factually on or offside.
I agree a clear offside is absolute, but I don't think you can confirm factually if that Spurs goal was offside. I don't think there is any way to guarantee that the correct call was made. By the FAs own admission there is a margin for error.
 

joefraser

Active Member
I think the Clear and Obvious Error part is being mixed up with offside in many people's minds.

The C&OE refers to reviewing the 4 match changing situations - Goal, Penalty, Straight Red, Mistaken Identity.

Offside is absolute - you're either on or off, and given that it's already been stated that they review all goals, if someone is off then they're off. Doesn't matter if its a 'pubic hair offside', or 3 yards. It's not the distance if offside that's being reviewed, it's not saying that offside is a clear and obvious error, it's literally verifying if the player was factually on or offside.
I understand what you are saying, however I thought if you were level you were onside. Now you can never be a silhouette of the defender, so yes if your foot is closer to the goal than your opponent ( King v Southampton ) it's off, but the top of your arm ( Sterling ) come on, that is just too anal for my liking, he can't even legally score with that part of his body.
 

Valley Bluenose

Well-Known Member
I think the Clear and Obvious Error part is being mixed up with offside in many people's minds.

The C&OE refers to reviewing the 4 match changing situations - Goal, Penalty, Straight Red, Mistaken Identity.

Offside is absolute - you're either on or off, and given that it's already been stated that they review all goals, if someone is off then they're off. Doesn't matter if its a 'pubic hair offside', or 3 yards. It's not the distance if offside that's being reviewed, it's not saying that offside is a clear and obvious error, it's literally verifying if the player was factually on or offside.
It is absolute, I agree. Furthermore, people are endlessly trotting out the ‘clear and obvious error’ line as if that’s it, there’s no more to it if it wasn’t a ‘clear and obvious error. The actual explanation of what the VAR will look at goes beyond that - yet folk repeatedly choose to ignore the second criteria. The following extract is from the EPLs own FAQ on the introduction of VAR:

What incidents does the VAR check?
VAR will be used only for “clear and obvious errors” or “serious missed incidents” in four match-changing situations: goals; penalty decisions; direct red-card incidents; and mistaken identity.

That second criteria makes a huge difference in practice. For me, a clear and obvious error is the referee making a wrong call on an incident whereas the serious missed incident is, by definition, one he doesn’t even see in order to make a judgement.

FWIW I thought the decision in the Spurs game was correct - he was offside, whatever the fine margin. In the Chelsea game, again the player was offside by a fine margin, but in that instance I thought they went too far back in the phase of play to rule the goal out.
 

Big Buff

Well-Known Member
VAR is for people who constantly moan about refereeing decisions and cannot accept that referees will get some things wrong in games, and that the variance introduced by their subjective decision making will occasionally influence the outcome of games.

If people were willing to accept refereeing mistakes, VAR would never have happened.
 

wd1872

Well-Known Member
It's an absolute sham, end of story.

It's there at the moment to cancel goals, nothing else.

Why do we watch Football ? To be entertained, to see goals going in.

So what do the geniuses at the top implement? A way that we can see less goals! Yay!

The reality is that every 10 seconds or so there could be a debatable decision but it seems that unless a goal is scored it doesn't seem to matter.

What they have to do if they insist on adding technology to the game is offer a fair system for everyone. Challenge system, like in tennis. 3 challenges for each team, whenever a team thinks there is a decision to oppose, the captain has a word in the refs ear, or manager has a word with the 4th official(maybe even give that useless prick something to do!)

Best way to do it, this way if someone is offside by the length of a pubic hair and the linesman misses it and nobody is claiming for it, it's a goal!!!! As it should be!!!
 

YOGI_GER

Well-Known Member
VAR should only be used when.

Either team manger calls it like Hawkeye. 2 per half.

The ref can’t see a decision and ness to see it.
 

YOGI_GER

Well-Known Member
It's an absolute sham, end of story.

It's there at the moment to cancel goals, nothing else.

Why do we watch Football ? To be entertained, to see goals going in.

So what do the geniuses at the top implement? A way that we can see less goals! Yay!

The reality is that every 10 seconds or so there could be a debatable decision but it seems that unless a goal is scored it doesn't seem to matter.

What they have to do if they insist on adding technology to the game is offer a fair system for everyone. Challenge system, like in tennis. 3 challenges for each team, whenever a team thinks there is a decision to oppose, the captain has a word in the refs ear.

Best way to do it, this way if someone is offside by the length of a pubic hair and the linesman misses it and nobody is claiming for it, it's a goal!!!! As it should be!!!
What do you mean?

If it’s not a goal then it should not stand?
 

legalbeagle

Well-Known Member
It is for TV companies and armchair fans, shows no concern for those that actually go to the game and has the potential to ruin matches when you could have repeated breaks for minutes on end (while the fans in the stadium get no chance to know what is going in)
 

wd1872

Well-Known Member
What do you mean?

If it’s not a goal then it should not stand?
I am referring to offside 'goals' like in the Chelsea game yesterday, the linesman missed it, nobody claimed for it, so let it be!

VAR should never intervene, unless a team feels like they have been hard done. Hence why you should give them a certain number of challenges.

All IMO of course. If you are going to add technology to the game it has to be fairer than it is currently.
 

jigster

Well-Known Member
Official Ticketer
I'm all for goal-line technology as a goal should be a goal , but things that stop the flow of the game make it a poor spectacle for the people that pay to go to games ...........


armchair fans probably view VAR as a good time to go for a piss
 

YOGI_GER

Well-Known Member
I am referring to offside 'goals' like in the Chelsea game yesterday, the linesman missed it, nobody claimed for it, so let it be!

VAR should never intervene, unless a team feels like they have been hard done. Hence why you should give them a certain number of challenges.

All IMO of course. If you are going to add technology to the game it has to be fairer than it is currently.
Fair enough mate and good point.
 

weevlad

Well-Known Member
VAR is great

The idiotic implementation in the Premiership however is stupid

Segregate the two statements, they are completely different arguments.

Take Ice Hockey in the UK, the referees can call for video review of a goal if they werent sure about something. The managers can call for a video review (Wimbledon Style) if they feel there was an infringement in the run up to the goal or something similar. They have limited times they can do this.

PS If the ref gave that St Johnstone goal yesterday and VAR reversed it, FF would be hailing it as the best thing since sliced bread
 

YOGI_GER

Well-Known Member
VAR is great

The idiotic implementation in the Premiership however is stupid

Segregate the two statements, they are completely different arguments.

Take Ice Hockey in the UK, the referees can call for video review of a goal if they werent sure about something. The managers can call for a video review (Wimbledon Style) if they feel there was an infringement in the run up to the goal or something similar. They have limited times they can do this.

PS If the ref gave that St Johnstone goal yesterday and VAR reversed it, FF would be hailing it as the best thing since sliced bread
Agreed.
 

nasalsinatra

Well-Known Member
VAR is being applied differently in England from the rest of Europe where it is in operations. In the EPL it is being applied rigidly, in effect Re-refereeing games for every major incident even although there is nothing readily apparent to warrant such scrutiny. How many referees EPL games have actually gone to the TV screen at the side of the pitch to see for themselves in order to review and make their own decision rather than simply accept the view of the VAR official in the studio? None as far as I am aware. In Europe referees see for themselves.
 

devilman

Well-Known Member
I guess it was for the fans and clubs that keep shouting like %^*& about decisions being wrong. However, it's just not being managed well at the moment. It can be a good thing but there needs to be a way to make it more fluid and have less of an impact on the flow of the game - how the hell they do that I have no idea.

The thing is, it's getting a lot of correct calls. Calls that it is totally understandable that refs missed. So, I guess everyone needs to decide whether they'd rather have the calls being correct which VAR will do or are they happy turning a blind eye and moaning a lot to get the flow of the game back right now.
 

Henderson55

Active Member
My reasoning with the offside is I know it’s the right decision but two people stood still shoulder to shoulder can’t tell who’s a millimetre forward nevermjnd 2 people playing football
 

williewoodburn

Well-Known Member
Best thing since sliced bread. Nothing worse than losing games through ref errors. I gave up fixed odds for that very reason. Imagine losing/drawing our last game of the season to a ref error, a game that would've given us 55 ! VAR would've given us a pen against St J and proved their 'goal' wasn't.
 

songsofglory

Well-Known Member
Best thing since sliced bread. Nothing worse than losing games through ref errors. I gave up fixed odds for that very reason. Imagine losing/drawing our last game of the season to a ref error, a game that would've given us 55 ! VAR would've given us a pen against St J and proved their 'goal' wasn't.
Even though it's not fixing the errors of the game?
 

Purpolaris

Well-Known Member
It would only help with offsides or whether a ball is over the line. There’s no guarantee we’d benefit as we’d be relying on a referee in a room deciding what to review.
So you don't think we'd have got that penalty on Sunday?
 

Renfrew@UKGB&NI

Well-Known Member
Here's the bottom line. Liverpool and man city fought ot out to the last because they were the best teams by a distance,the 3 who went down did because they were the worst. Celtic won the league because they were the most consistent team in the league and rangers couldn't capitalise on their chance. Results against kilmarnock alone prove that.
No var involved,the best team will come out on top.
 

GR6Ger

Well-Known Member
So you don't think we'd have got that penalty on Sunday?
If we’d use it the same way it’s being used in England then it’s a good chance we wouldn’t.

Even if VAR is introduced there will still be some incidents not looked at or wrong decisions made.
 

slacker

Member
I agree a clear offside is absolute, but I don't think you can confirm factually if that Spurs goal was offside. I don't think there is any way to guarantee that the correct call was made. By the FAs own admission there is a margin for error.
In which case it absolutely should be applied to benefit the attacker if the game has played on and a goal been scored IMHO.
 

DC Anchor

Well-Known Member
It's the first step towards adverts during breaks in play.

2 x 45 mins restricts potential ad revenue.

It helps crack the US, a market that football still struggles to gain decent market share.
years ago before the inter-web;)
I watched an FA Cup Final in a bar in DC, when the ball went out or long injuries they immediately went to 'commercials",fcuking infuriating!
VAR will give them an opportunity to do the same.
Part of Americanization/Globalization, sucks for the fan good for business!
A 60 minutes NFL game take between 3-4 hours! Think of the opportunity for commercials in a 'soccer game' that long!
 

slacker

Member
Best thing since sliced bread. Nothing worse than losing games through ref errors. I gave up fixed odds for that very reason. Imagine losing/drawing our last game of the season to a ref error, a game that would've given us 55 ! VAR would've given us a pen against St J and proved their 'goal' wasn't.
Possibly, there were still plenty of pundits who seemed to think it was a goal despite evidence to the contrary. We'd have lost the last goal as well. I'm certain that VAR would be selectively applied in Scotland and certainly don't think we'd do as well out of it as others on here seem to believe.
 

Valley Bluenose

Well-Known Member
I agree a clear offside is absolute, but I don't think you can confirm factually if that Spurs goal was offside. I don't think there is any way to guarantee that the correct call was made. By the FAs own admission there is a margin for error.
If there is a 'margin for error' and VAR reduces that margin for error - which is its primary purpose after all - is that not a good thing?

I seem to recall in the build-up to the last World Cup the stat that came out was that referees got around 94% of calls correct. With VAR they were hitting 97%. That said, the recent - early - report on VAR in the EPL gave stats on how many decisions they'd looked at, how many were right/wrong and how many they'd missed. Crunching the numbers it came down to just 95% of the decisions looked at were called correctly after the use of VAR. That's not hitting the targets they hoped. Albeit it was from a comparatively small sample this early in the season.
 

dt17

Well-Known Member
VAR as in the technology is a great addition IMO.

The current rules surrounding it are awful.

The hand ball rule is a joke. Even if it's entirely accidental, if the ball touches a strikers hand then they score from it the goal is disallowed. In the very same instance if the ball brushes a defenders hand accidentally then it doesn't mean it's a penalty.

So you effectively have two different rules which is unfair.

The offside is because a piss take as well. Still not buying that Son was offside the other day in the Spurs game. It was far too close to call and you're relying on the technology being accurate within millimetres, the person controlling the lines in the VAR room getting it spot on and getting the EXACT millisecond where the ball left the players foot correct as well. Far too many variables for such a tight call.

Interesting stat I heard on MOTD last night though. I think they said so far VAR has been used 11 times to make a ruling on a goal...only once has it been positive, the other 10 times were to chop goals off.
 

MusicMan Majesty

Well-Known Member
You can bet your bottom dollar that in Asia, where the EPL have huge markets for their product, that the big betting syndicates will be betting huge amounts on the outcome of VAR.
 

songsofglory

Well-Known Member
If there is a 'margin for error' and VAR reduces that margin for error - which is its primary purpose after all - is that not a good thing?

I seem to recall in the build-up to the last World Cup the stat that came out was that referees got around 94% of calls correct. With VAR they were hitting 97%. That said, the recent - early - report on VAR gave stats on how many decisions they'd looked at, how many were right/wrong and how many they'd missed. Crunching the numbers it came down to just 95% of the decisions looked at were called correctly after the use of VAR. That's not hitting the targets they hoped. Albeit it was from a comparatively small sample this early in the season.
The VAR was implemented slightly differently in the World Cup. Infact, the World Cup actually put me in favour of VAR until I've seen it used in the EPL. The margin of error thing was to do with the frames of the cameras and being unable to confirm exactly when it left the players boot to determine the position of offside or not. It was something like millimetres, but when decisions are coming down to minute details then this is important.

It's been a disaster in the EPL so far with decisions being all over the place.
 

Renfrew@UKGB&NI

Well-Known Member
years ago before the inter-web;)
I watched an FA Cup Final in a bar in DC, when the ball went out or long injuries they immediately went to 'commercials",fcuking infuriating!
VAR will give them an opportunity to do the same.
Part of Americanization/Globalization, sucks for the fan good for business!
A 60 minutes NFL game take between 3-4 hours! Think of the opportunity for commercials in a 'soccer game' that long!
I think that's what's behind all of this. Football rulers have been told by tv companies that there's untold riches to be made with advertising around this thing,thats why they're determined to push it through. Good for the game or not. Money first, feck everything else.
No coincidence that all the commentators and anchor men in the studios are all for this.
Listening to talksport now. Jim white and natalie Sawyer are all for it,Danny Murphy isn't. That tells me enough
 

dt17

Well-Known Member
Also, I think fans within the stadiums should be kept up to date with what's going on...as it stands they need to check on their phones to see what the decision is / why it's happened.

No paying customer should be kept in the dark like that.

And who do you think would monitor the VAR ?
Thing is, they'd have nowhere to hide. Currently referees can give/not give blatant decisions and hide behind the fact that they never seen it. With VAR that excuse would be gone and they could be held accountable.
 

Renfrew@UKGB&NI

Well-Known Member
If there is a 'margin for error' and VAR reduces that margin for error - which is its primary purpose after all - is that not a good thing?

I seem to recall in the build-up to the last World Cup the stat that came out was that referees got around 94% of calls correct. With VAR they were hitting 97%. That said, the recent - early - report on VAR in the EPL gave stats on how many decisions they'd looked at, how many were right/wrong and how many they'd missed. Crunching the numbers it came down to just 95% of the decisions looked at were called correctly after the use of VAR. That's not hitting the targets they hoped. Albeit it was from a comparatively small sample this early in the season.
For that small percentage,is it really worth screwing the game up for.
Just shows to me that the vast majority of decisions are correct.
 

Valley Bluenose

Well-Known Member
Also, I think fans within the stadiums should be kept up to date with what's going on...as it stands they need to check on their phones to see what the decision is / why it's happened.

No paying customer should be kept in the dark like that.
Most of the stadia have screens now. Not all admittedly. TV tends to show the message about VAR review and the outcome as it goes up on the screens and you can hear the noise from the fans in the background as the messages go up on the screens as well.
 

Valley Bluenose

Well-Known Member
For that small percentage,is it really worth screwing the game up for.
Just shows to me that the vast majority of decisions are correct.
I guess it depends how much of a difference that small percentage makes to YOUR team. As someone has pointed out above, if we lose the league because a referee doesn't give a penalty as per the handball we had yesterday in Perth - that would, obviously, have been given by VAR - then this place would be in absolute meltdown. That one decision over the course of a season could, theoretically at least, have huge implications.
 

bluetonic

Well-Known Member
Match going fans hate it. Most, but not all, fans who can't attend matches hate it.

Is it to be part of the switch to pleasing worldwide armchair audience? Is it football as a Saturday night entertainment show?

It's already, within a year, nothing to do with checking clear and obvious errors. It's also utterly random : see Villa penalty claim at Emirates.

I haven't even touched on the farce of goals and emotions undone by millimetres, reviewed 10-15 times.

What is it supposed to be doing to improve football?
Not for the fans anyway, if you look at the stats for the EPL it has had a negative impact on games, ie ruling out more goals than actually improving the game.
I hate it ( as I’ve said on here many times)
 
Top